Mr. Speaker, whatever a company may have done in anticipation that it might receive a contract is entirely at its own risk. As experience has demonstrated, sometimes that risk indeed comes to bear upon the company. I would point out to members of the House the recent example of this summer when a moratorium was imposed upon certain activities. Some people had anticipated work and did not get it because of a government decision that said they should not.

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that the profiteers and privatizers of health care are rushing to try to put the nails in the coffin of medicare before Roy Romanow has a chance to report. Today we learn about Ontario trying to pull ahead of B.C., which is trying to catch up to Alberta, by opening the cash register for for profit private hospitals. This even though we have all kinds of evidence, including the research from the Romanow commission, that says private hospitals do not deliver better and more effective care.

Is the federal government going to stand silently by and award the trophy of medicare?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. It is certainly a topic of current interest these days.

It is obvious that the Government of Canada has always made it clear: the Canada Health Act will be respected. Necessary health care will be made available to anyone who needs it. This is why, on this review, the government commissioned the Romanow study, and we should have the official report in hand by the end of the month. We will examine this report, and that of the Kirby commission. On that basis, we will make the necessary decisions to ensure that all Canadians have access—

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to ask the government the question Romanow put yesterday: Where is the beef? Is there no clear statement of concern in the face of this fundamental erosion of our health care system? Just yesterday we learned from the College of Family Physicians that 4.5 million Canadians are waiting to get access to a family doctor, the very first entry point to our health care system, a bedrock, fundamental part of our health care system.

Is there a plan of action to ensure Canadians have access to non-profit, quality health care services?

Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of what is going on in the medical community. We know full well that, in recent years, there have been changes in the way physicians practice medicine. I was there; I saw the changes.

This has definitely created some turbulence in the system. That is why, in 2000, the first ministers agreed to inject $800 million to ensure better access to primary care. We will continue in that direction, and I can assure my hon. colleague that we will be there, keeping a close watch on things.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we debated the government's new citizenship act, Bill C-18. The problem with the last two bills the government tried to introduce, Bill C-63 and Bill C-16, was that both created two classes of Canadian citizens: those who are born here and those who are naturalized.

Why does the new citizenship act, Bill C-18, continue to support two classes of Canadian citizenship?

Mark AssadLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, what the member has raised is totally inexact. This is not a two measure system. It is very simple. The new law states that those who are adopted from abroad will obtain immediate citizenship. That is good news for prospective people who want to adopt.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is about due process of law. Under section 17 of the new bill, the minister still has a right to take away the citizenship of naturalized Canadians during the first five years. There is no equality of citizenship between those who are born here and those who are naturalized.

Why does the minister continue to support two classes of citizenship in this country?

Mark AssadLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, once again I believe that the member is erring. It is very clear that there is judicial process in this. It will be debated and I am sure that the member will get all the answers concerning this issue.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians in Toronto are increasingly vulnerable to gun related crimes. Over the last weekend in October, four people were killed by gunfire and another five wounded in three separate incidents of gun violence.

Instead of the government going after law-abiding hunters and gun owners with its $1 billion firearms registry, the Liberal government should get tough on the criminal misuse of guns.

When will the government introduce legislation to ensure that mandatory minimum sentences for criminals convicted of using a gun in the commission of a crime are upheld?

Paul MacKlinLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice recently spoke about looking at the Criminal Code in its entirety. In that regard, last week he held a round table to look at the future of the Criminal Code. We will be looking at all these issues in the coming months.

Mr. Speaker, round tables and looking at things are simply not good enough for the people of Toronto or anywhere else in Canada. It is clear that rather than wasting time and money registering a hunter's bird gun, the government should be passing laws getting tough on criminals who use guns.

Toronto Police Chief Fantino blames the increased violence in his city to “guns, drugs and gangs”.

Instead of targeting law-abiding gun owners, why will the Liberal government not enact consecutive sentences for firearm related crimes?

Paul MacKlinLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, as I just mentioned, the review process, which is ongoing with the minister, will look at issues of this nature. We have been providing tools for the law enforcement agencies and the law enforcement agencies are working with those tools. If more tools are needed, we will provide them.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the other place said this week that the House of Commons and the Senate would soon be voting on the principles of Kyoto. However, at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, the Prime Minister made a promise to ratify the Kyoto protocol before Christmas.

Will the Prime Minister tell us exactly what we will be voting on? Will we be voting on the principles of Kyoto, or on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol?

Don BoudriaLiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is no doubt aware that the ratification itself is an executive function in Canada. This is in our Constitution. This House, of course, will vote to ask the government to ratify the protocol. This is what the Prime Minister said.

Mr. Speaker, the situation is just as ambiguous as before I asked the question. Will the government commit to holding a debate, once members return to the House on November 18, on the ratification of the Kyoto protocol so that on November 21, when the Minister of the Environment meets with his provincial counterparts, he has the support and mandate from the House of Commons to ratify the Kyoto protocol?

Don BoudriaLiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just asked a question that is the same as the answer that I gave to his previous question. Why he did this, I do not understand. As for his request to have the House debate the matter prior to consultations with the provinces, I think that most Canadians would be against that idea.

Paul MacKlinLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to work in every way possible to avoid the sexual exploitation of our children.

One of the issues that has been looked at over the last week has been the raising of the age of sexual consent. However it appears that what would be a better approach may be to deal with legislating against the predators themselves, and that is where we will look.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing preventing the government from doing both.

A federal justice department paper of November 1999 recommended raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 or 18. I personally prefer 18. There is a huge difference between 14 and 16 years of age and 16 and 18 years of age in terms of people's maturity.

Under the law in Canada today, it is perfectly legal, for example, for a 55 year old man to prey upon and have sex with a 14 year old child.

Why is the government tolerating laws that allow a 55 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old kid?

Paul MacKlinLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, this matter was dealt with this week at the federal-provincial-territorial meetings. In reviewing this, there obviously is a great deal of difference of opinion on whether that is the appropriate way to go.

From our perspective, we are looking at the broader nature of the problem and trying to deal with those would be predators.

Mr. Speaker, up until yesterday the Government of Canada was advising its citizens not to travel to the United States if they were born in one of eight particular countries, because of the special discriminatory treatment awaiting them at the border.

Yesterday, Canada lifted that warning on the grounds that it was reassured by the U.S. Attorney General's announcement that, in future, those targeted would “qualify for, or meet criteria that is intelligence-based that relates to preventing terrorism”.

How can the Canadian government claim to find these words by John Ashcroft reassuring, when they confirm to us that U.S. agents will still be able to make arbitrary decisions?

Aileen CarrollLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the question was asked, if only to convey what the minister has conveyed to the House. The minister was assured by what Mr. Ashcroft said yesterday in being advised yet again, pursuant to his own discussions, that the question of country of birth will not trigger NSEERS. What Mr. Ashcroft said yesterday confirms that is so.

We are pleased and we will continue to monitor, but that has settled and confirmed our concerns for the moment.